The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Ying, Guo; Schunn, Christian D.; Yu, Qiuying

doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075

Cited by 51 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This, according to her, implies that they had more freedom over using or not using their partner's comments while they would mostly follow the teacher's recommendations. Muncie's findings were also supported by recent studies (Fithriani, 2018;Gao, Schunn, & Yu, 2018;Kuyyogsuy, 2019) whose results indicate that peer feedback help students improve their writing performance in a number of aspects: it helps promote social interaction, develop affective strategies, support critical thinking skills, become more autonomous learners, and enhance social and intellectual development through working collaboratively. Irrespective of whether it is teacher or peer feedback, these studies lead us to a preliminary conclusion that corrective feedback is beneficial for improving student writing accuracy.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 61%

Teacher’s Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Errors: Diagnosis and Treatment

Tien

2021

International Journal of English Language and Literature Studie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teacher feedback on EFL students' writing is essential in the teaching and learning process. While a large body of research has focused on treatment of errors and content feedback in general, little has been done about the types of mistakes that students can overcome by themselves and how comments on contents should be worded. There are two major causes of errors: first language interference and developmental factors. The former type is harder for learners to overcome and the latter category can be gradually improved by their own efforts. This paper serves dual purposes: diagnosis and treatment. First, it examines types of errors that could be fixed by students with teacher's assistance. Second, it looks into how content feedback should be worded. It specifically analyzes marginal and final comments broken into five categories to see how these types of content feedback help students improve their rewrites. It was found that errors with subject-verb agreement and with nouns used for generic references belong to developmental errors and, thus they do not need teacher's intervention; teacher's comments with directions/suggestions and questions for clarification are the most effective for students to improve their rewrites.Contribution/ Originality: This paper contributes to the literature on EFL writing feedback in the context where the educational culture is heavily teacher-centered. It provides an insight into how teachers' feedback and comments may help students improve their subsequent drafts and points out that teacher's intervention of student's written errors should be selective.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 61%

Teacher’s Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Errors: Diagnosis and Treatment

Tien

2021

International Journal of English Language and Literature Studie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following extraction, we segmented each descriptive text into idea units. An idea unit (also called unit of meaning) is a phrase, statement, or series of statements that represent one idea in the description (Gebre et al , 2014; Gebre and Polman, 2016; Gao et al , 2018; Luo et al , 2018; Nelson and Schunn, 2009). We then analyzed the segments using open-coding and constant comparison (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How “accessible” is open data?

Gebre

Morales

2020

ILS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to examine the nature and sufficiency of descriptive information included in open datasets and the nature of comments and questions users write in relation to specific datasets. Open datasets are provided to facilitate civic engagement and government transparency. However, making the data available does not guarantee usage. This paper examined the nature of context-related information provided together with the datasets and identified the challenges users encounter while using the resources. Design/methodology/approach The authors extracted descriptive text provided together with (often at the top of) datasets (N = 216) and the nature of questions and comments users post in relation to the dataset. They then segmented text descriptions and user comments into “idea units” and applied open-coding with constant comparison method. This allowed them to come up with thematic issues that descriptions focus on and the challenges users encounter. Findings Results of the analysis revealed that context-related descriptions are limited and normative. Users are expected to figure out how to use the data. Analysis of user comments/questions revealed four areas of challenge they encounter: organization and accessibility of the data, clarity and completeness, usefulness and accuracy and language (spelling and grammar). Data providers can do more to address these issues. Research limitations/implications The purpose of the study is to understand the nature of open data provision and suggest ways of making open data more accessible to “non expert users”. As such, it is not focused on generalizing about open data provision in various countries as such provision may be different based on jurisdiction. Practical implications The study provides insight about ways of organizing open dataset that the resource can be accessible by the general public. It also provides suggestions about how open data providers could consider users' perspectives including providing continuous support. Originality/value Research on open data often focuses on technological, policy and political perspectives. Arguably, this is the first study on analysis of context-related information in open-datasets. Datasets do not “speak for themselves” because they require context for analysis and interpretation. Understanding the nature of context-related information in open dataset is original idea.

show abstract

“…Peer assessment is a popular and widely-used intervention for incorporating writing and feedback into diverse learning contexts (Li, Xiong, Hunter, Guo, & Tywoniw, 2019;Panadero & Jonsson, 2013;Topping, 1998Topping, , 2009. Peer assessment of writing can be used to directly enable and support instruction in writing courses (Fathi & Khodabakhsh, 2019;Gao, Schunn, & Yu, 2019) and can also support learning within and across other disciplines (Oshner & Fowler, 2004), such as math (Sluijsman, Brand-Gruwel, van Merriënboer, & Bastiaens, 2003), science (Patchan, Schunn, & Clark, 2011, 2018, history (Patchan, Charney, & Schunn, 2009), psychology (Patchan, Hawk, Stevens, & Schunn, 2013;Patchan & Schunn, 2016), and more. Evidence suggests that students learn from writing (Ackerman, 1993;Arnold et al, 2017;Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004;Klein, 1999) and from evaluating and giving feedback on others' writing (Cho & MacArthur, 2011;Patchan & Schunn, 2015; see also 'learning by teaching, ' Roscoe, 2014).…”

Section: Students As Evaluators Of Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Student Evaluations of Writing and Authors as a Function of Writing Errors

Roscoe

Wilson

Patchan

et al. 2020

JLE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writers are often judged by their audience, and these evaluations can encompass both the text and the authors. This study built upon prior research on writing evaluation and error perceptions to examine how interconnected or separable are these judgments. Using a within-subjects design, college students evaluated four essays demonstrating no errors, lower-level errors, higher-level errors, or both types. Evaluations included writing quality traits (e.g., conventions, ideas, organization, sentence fluency, and voice) and author characteristics (e.g., creativity, intelligence, generosity, and kindness). Exploratory factor analyses identified latent constructs within these ratings. One construct, Writing Quality and Skill, appeared to combine writing traits and authors’ intellectual ability (e.g., intelligence and knowledgeability). The second construct, Author Personality, seemed to comprise interpersonal author traits (e.g., kindness and loyalty). The two constructs were significantly and positively correlated. These results suggest that students tended to form holistic impressions of writing quality and authors rather than distinct judgments about individual traits. The spillover onto perceptions of authors’ personal characteristics may be representative of latent biases. Student raters were also more sensitive to lower-level errors than higher-level errors. Implications for biases and training related to peer assessment are discussed.

show abstract

The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Cited by 51 publications

References 51 publications

Teacher’s Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Errors: Diagnosis and Treatment

Teacher’s Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Errors: Diagnosis and Treatment

How “accessible” is open data?

Modeling Student Evaluations of Writing and Authors as a Function of Writing Errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About